Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nancy Duarte (2nd nomination)
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. enough consensus based on WP:N JForget 02:07, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
AfDs for this article:
- Nancy Duarte (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Bit of an odd situation here. The result of the previous AfD on this unsourced BLP, last November, was that it should be merged to Duarte Design. However, the latter article was deleted shortly thereafter as a result of another AfD, so Duarte's article has been sitting around ever since with a tag requesting that an editor merge the content to a nonexistent article. Since the previous consensus cannot be implemented and the article cannot be CSD'd or prodded after having passed through AfD, it appears that a new consensus regarding the fate of the article is needed.
Although this is therefore a mainly procedural nomination, my personal recommendation is weak delete, as I'm not seeing source material that is independent and substantive enough to support a decent biographical article on the person or to meet the requirements of the GNG. Deor (talk) 11:56, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
*Delete. Not notable - Does not meet qualifications for notability --SuperHappyPerson (talk) 12:55, 26 March 2010 (UTC)SuperHappyPerson[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:BIO. ukexpat (talk) 21:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. SilverserenC 02:31, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have tagged this article for rescue. SilverserenC 02:31, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strongest keep I could possibly give I am absolutely blown away by the fact that this is up for AfD and that the counterpart design company was ever deleted. I have added copious amounts of references and sources to the article. She has been represented in practically every big name newspaper out there. I found 106 hits on Google News from main, reliable sources. What the heck is going on here? SilverserenC 02:31, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Call me crazy, but leaving a message asking for members of a WikiProject specifically designed to retain articles to come here and vote runs afoul of WP:Canvass. The article has been tagged for rescue, why should you be asking for them to vote in an AfD? AniMate 03:07, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just asking them to vote, without placing any emphasis on what they should vote, is not canvassing. The other members that come here will, just as I would, look at the article with a neutral point of view and determine if it should be kept or not. If they feel it is not up to standard, then they will vote delete. They are not biased just because we are all part of the group. The group's job is to find sources and make articles up to standard. If that cannot be done, then we will vote delete just as anyone else. SilverserenC 03:20, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand the reason for your comment, AniMate, but as a practical matter, ARS template notification and the ARS talk page only identifies articles which may be of interest to those who like to rescue articles, just like deletion sorting does for category interests. For example, so far this Nancy Duarte article is not impressing me, but if it can be improved with sources focusing just on her, it might be worth saving. Drive-by keeps (or deletes from those who follow rescue tagged articles to generally vote delete) are not persuasive anyway.--Milowent (talk) 03:36, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure what your edit summary of "evil inclusionist taliban" means, but surely the rescue template is enough. When someone votes "strongest keep I could possibly give" then asks a group of people with decidedly lower norms of notability than most to come vote... well it's hard to see that as anything other than an attempt to sway an AfD. AniMate 03:57, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment While your objection is relevant, AniMate, the assertion that ARS have lower standards of notabilit is neither appropriate nor justified. I would be equally justified and equally irrelevant in saying the ARS tends to be a group unswayed by WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Jclemens (talk) 04:06, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- AniMate, my edit summary comment is simply a joke based on a comment in a recent RFA where someone was referred to as a member of the "inclusionist taliban", which got people riled up a bit. If the ARS can sway the outcome of an AfD just based on !votes and not article improvement, it likely only happens at articles on the margins (a small % of AfDs), articles in that area where what's "notable" varies from editor to editor.--Milowent (talk) 04:30, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment While your objection is relevant, AniMate, the assertion that ARS have lower standards of notabilit is neither appropriate nor justified. I would be equally justified and equally irrelevant in saying the ARS tends to be a group unswayed by WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Jclemens (talk) 04:06, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure what your edit summary of "evil inclusionist taliban" means, but surely the rescue template is enough. When someone votes "strongest keep I could possibly give" then asks a group of people with decidedly lower norms of notability than most to come vote... well it's hard to see that as anything other than an attempt to sway an AfD. AniMate 03:57, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand the reason for your comment, AniMate, but as a practical matter, ARS template notification and the ARS talk page only identifies articles which may be of interest to those who like to rescue articles, just like deletion sorting does for category interests. For example, so far this Nancy Duarte article is not impressing me, but if it can be improved with sources focusing just on her, it might be worth saving. Drive-by keeps (or deletes from those who follow rescue tagged articles to generally vote delete) are not persuasive anyway.--Milowent (talk) 03:36, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just asking them to vote, without placing any emphasis on what they should vote, is not canvassing. The other members that come here will, just as I would, look at the article with a neutral point of view and determine if it should be kept or not. If they feel it is not up to standard, then they will vote delete. They are not biased just because we are all part of the group. The group's job is to find sources and make articles up to standard. If that cannot be done, then we will vote delete just as anyone else. SilverserenC 03:20, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Business Week and NY Times articles (the latter included in the article as an EL) focusing on the woman and her design efforts meet WP:GNG as multiple, independent reliable sources. I have no opinion on whether the article should be titled for her or her design studio--our practice has differed over the years--but the coverage is sufficient. Jclemens (talk) 04:06, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Neither of those articles is about her as a person, and the NYT one just uses her as a human-interest lead-in to a topic not directly related to her or her profession. If these are the most substantive sources that folks can come up with (I'm particularly bemused by the note citing the credit line of the epigraph of an article that nowhere else mentions her), I'm feeling better about the nomination. Deor (talk) 16:47, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What, you expect Business Week or the NYT to do a retrospective on her childhood, high school experiences, and the like? That's an absurdly high bar. She's mentioned non-trivially; that is enough. The fact that it's about her work vs. her personal life is an argument for focusing the article (including possible renaming) on her professional work vs. personal life. Jclemens (talk) 17:08, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Neither of those articles is about her as a person, and the NYT one just uses her as a human-interest lead-in to a topic not directly related to her or her profession. If these are the most substantive sources that folks can come up with (I'm particularly bemused by the note citing the credit line of the epigraph of an article that nowhere else mentions her), I'm feeling better about the nomination. Deor (talk) 16:47, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Evidently notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:12, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - it appears she is somewhat notable. I would have merged the design article into her article, not the other way around, if I had been the closing admin on the 1st AfD. Bearian (talk) 20:02, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Enough non trivial coverage to indicate notability. --Sodabottle (talk) 20:45, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Ample sources available to meet WP:N. Ty 15:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.